Would a U.S. war with Iran be a catastrophe? 

By Jacob Kohn and Walter E. Block

Screenshot via Youtube

According to Rosemary Kelanic, publishing in the New York Times, any entrance by the US on behalf of Israel in its present war with Iran most certainly would be a catastrophe. She makes some important and telling points, but, ultimately, her case fails due to internal contradictions and flawed analogies.

She begins on this note: “Israel … is looking less and less like a true friend” of the US. In what way, pray tell, did the only civilized country in the Middle East stab the US in the back?

Her answer: “Israel’s surprise attack on Iran on Friday has almost certainly blown up any chance of reaching the nuclear deal the United States was pursuing for months.”

This is rather problematic. First of all, she is espousing an isolationist viewpoint. According to that perspective, America should mind its own business and avoid “entangling alliances,” in the words of George Washington.

Yet she simultaneously criticizes Israel for disrupting what the US was “pursuing” namely, diplomatic engagement with Iran.

This represents a fundamental contradiction in her thesis. Either the US should stay out of Middle Eastern affairs entirely, or it has legitimate interests there. She cannot have it both ways.

Moreover, how “surprising” was this attack? Kelanic herself acknowledges that Trump knew it was imminent and the US had already begun evacuations. This undermines her own narrative about Israel blindsiding America.

Further, two recent developments should have given the US ample warning that military action was imminent. First, Mr. Trump’s 60-day deadline for negotiations was rapidly approaching. Second, the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran was in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. These were clear signals that diplomatic options were exhausting themselves.

Next, continuing in her self-contradictory manner, she states that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has “… recklessly endangered the 40,000 U.S. troops deployed in the region, putting them at immediate risk of Iranian retaliation.”

Again, from her isolationist perspective, these soldiers should not have been anywhere near the Middle East in the first place. Why blame Netanyahu for creating conditions that might encourage the US to bring its troops home – exactly what her worldview demands?

What is so “reckless” about national self-defense? Israel has been concerned for years that Iran was on the verge of attaining nuclear capability. After all, Iran has labeled Israel “The Little Satan” and on numerous occasions has threatened its total annihilation. Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated: “Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be eliminated.”

Was the US “reckless” in 1962 when it objected to the installation of Soviet weapons in Cuba? Was it “reckless” when it established a blockade entirely surrounding that country, which is surely an act of war? If not, then Israel’s preemptive action against an existential threat cannot be deemed reckless either.

If there is any charge to be made against Israel, it is that they gave the US any advance warning at all about their impending attack on Iran. This deprived them of the full element of surprise from which they otherwise would have benefitted. But Israel regards itself as an ally of the US, and thus sacrificed a significant tactical advantage to apprise its partner of its intentions.

According to Kelanic, the US currently maintains some 800 military bases around the world. What kind of isolationism is that? Yet, there is nary a word of criticism from her about this state of affairs. It seems her isolationism is highly selective – applying only when it comes to supporting the Jewish state.

She claims “It would be the worst mistake of Mr. Trump’s presidency” to help Israel prevent Iran’s nuclear capability. This assessment ignores a crucial fact: Iran doesn’t just hate Israel (the “Little Satan”) – it reserves its greatest animosity for America (the “Big Satan”). A nuclear-armed Iran, filled with ideological hatred for both nations, poses a direct threat to US interests and potentially to the American homeland itself. She cites 2,324 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan as catastrophic, but doesn’t consider the potential casualties if Iran achieves nuclear weapons – a death toll that could dwarf Afghanistan losses.

She further avers: “The misguided 2003 invasion of Iraq was also a war to forestall nuclear proliferation. Disaster ensued, and not just because Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.”

But this analogy is fundamentally flawed. Unlike Iraq in 2003, there is no serious debate about Iran’s nuclear program. The IAEA has documented it. Iran has openly boasted about it. Moreover, she conveniently ignores successful precedents like Israeli strikes on Iraq’s Osirak reactor (1981) and Syria’s nuclear facility (2007), which effectively prevented proliferation without triggering wider wars.

Next, Kelanic cites the US failure to stop the Houthis despite a “fruitless $7 billion campaign.” She notes that Iran is much stronger than this “ragtag militant group” and concludes the US should leave Iran alone.

This represents a serious logical fallacy. By this reasoning, we should never attempt difficult tasks simply because we’ve failed at easier ones. This is not the spirit that put humans on the moon or conquered diseases. Moreover, the Houthi comparison is misleading – thanks to cooperative efforts between the US and Israel, attacks on shipping in the Red Sea have significantly decreased. She emphasizes the $7 billion cost as prohibitive, but doesn’t consider the costs of containing a nuclear Iran indefinitely – or the catastrophic costs of failing to contain it.

She also invokes the US failure in Afghanistan as another cautionary tale. Again, the analogy fails. Afghanistan harbored terrorists but posed no existential threat to the US or its allies. There was no regional partner with shared values and interests.

The Middle East situation is entirely different, with Israel serving as a capable, technologically advanced ally with deep intelligence capabilities and regional expertise. Notably, she barely mentions Iran’s extensive proxy network – Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis – that has destabilized the entire region. A nuclear umbrella would embolden these groups exponentially.

Our author asserts: “Even a best-case scenario, in which the United States helps destroy the majority of Iranian nuclear sites, would only delay Iran’s progress toward developing a bomb.”

This is likely true, but so what? Justice delayed is often justice denied, but injustice delayed is injustice prevented, at least temporarily. If Iran can be prevented from going nuclear for even a decade or two, the current extremist regime may well have fallen and been replaced by more reasonable leadership. We don’t stop fighting forest fires simply because we know more will eventually occur.

Kelanic argues that regime change is “magical thinking” because “History has shown again and again that bombing a country turns its people against the attacker, not against their own regime.” Yet she engages in her own magical thinking – that diplomacy or “benign neglect” will somehow contain a regime openly committed to genocide.

However, Israel has carefully targeted nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, and regime leadership – not civilian populations. Unlike Iran and its proxies, who deliberately target civilians, Israel focuses on degrading the regime’s capacity to threaten others. This distinction cannot be lost on the Iranian people, who suffer under their government’s oppression.

She concludes with the remarkable claim that a bad [Iranian] government is preferable to the chaos of no government.” We respectfully but firmly disagree. This creates a false dichotomy – there are many possibilities between the current regime and total chaos, including a more moderate government emerging from internal opposition. The current Iranian regime exports terrorism, oppresses its own people, threatens genocide, and seeks nuclear weapons to advance these goals. It’s difficult to imagine a worse alternative.

Let us close by examining the nature of alliances. The US-Israel relationship is indeed a two-way street. Israel has provided invaluable intelligence, technological innovations, and strategic cooperation for decades. It stands as the fourth most powerful military in the world, punching far above its weight class. If Trump abandons one of America’s most capable and reliable allies in its hour of need, he will dangerously undermine not just this partnership but America’s credibility with all its allies.

We predict this conflict will end swiftly if Israel abandons its practice of fighting with one hand tied behind its back out of concern for enemy civilians. The US should not abandon a powerful ally confronting a mutual threat. To do so would be the real catastrophe.